Hi There,
Is it better in Italian to say:
- Ero sposato con una donna francese
or
- Sono stato sposato con una donna francese
In English I would say "I was married to a French woman" but I can't determine which is correct Italian
Thanks

It depends upon on what you are trying to say. If you mean that you were married to a french woman, in the sense that you used to be married to her, then Ero sposato con una donna francese is correct.

If, however, you mean that you got married to a french woman, it should be Mi sono sposato con una donna francese or Ho sposato una donna francese. You can also say Mi sono sposato una donna francese, but not in formal speech or writing.

Tom:
That is completely backwards. If you wanted to say that you used to be married to a Frenchwoman, i.e., you aren’t any longer, the correct choice would be, “Sono stato sposato con una donna francese.”
“Ero sposato con una donna francese,” doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not you are still married to her, unless you add a phrase such as “una volta,” “un tempo,” “prima,” etc.

(1) I’m afraid you are not correct, Tom. In Italian “Sono stato sposato con una donna francese” and “Ero sposato con una donna francese” mean the same thing. I personally prefer the latter.
Moreover, “Ero sposato” does not need any of those phrases; the “imperfetto” (ero) by itself usually means that I’m not married anymore.

If I say, “Mi hanno detto che eri sposato con un’americana”
(“I was told you were married to an American woman”)
I don’t need to add anything else, the context being understood (two years ago / before you married a French woman).

It’s true, however, that we sometimes need context to clarify things:

Ero sposato con la mia ex moglie quando la nostra casa di campagna fu svaligiata.
I was married to my ex wife when our country house was burgled.
[I might be living alone now, but also married to another woman]

Ero sposato con la mia attuale moglie quando la nostra casa di campagna fu svaligiata.
I was married to my current wife when our country house was burgled.
[I’m clearly still married.]

Tom:
This can be easily proven by looking at usage examples:
Sono stato sposato con lei per sette anni …

I was married to her for seven years…
The fact it says “for seven years” doesn’t leave any doubt: They aren’t married anymore. Hence why it says, “sono stato sposato,” rather than, “ero sposato,” which would be ungrammatical.

(2) I’m sorry Tom but your line of reasoning is not correct. The time expression “per sette anni” always requires a “present perfect tense”. That is why “ero sposato” would be ungrammatical.

Sono stato sposato / Ero sposato con una donna francese quando abitavo a Roma.
I was married to a French woman when I lived in Rome.
(Honestly, I would always use “ero sposato”.)

Moreover, “Ero sposato” does not need any of those phrase; the “imperfetto” (ero) by itself usually means that I’m not married anymore.

Actually, the imperfect tense never means that something isn’t the case anymore. It may be obvious from context, or it may be explicitly stated, as I mentioned, but the imperfect tense doesn’t signal it. That’s the job of the preterit and the present perfect.

If I say, “Mi hanno detto che eri sposato con un’americana”
(“I was told you were married to an American woman”)
I don’t need to add anything else, the context being understood (two years ago / before you married a French woman).

The addressee is obviously still “here,” otherwise she wouldn’t be able to hear this.

It’s true, however, that we sometimes need context to clarify things:

Ero sposato con la mia ex moglie quando la nostra casa di campagna fu svaligiata.
I was married to my ex wife when our country house was burgled.
[I might be living alone now, but also married to another woman]

I’m not talking about being married to another woman, I’m talking about still being married to the same woman, which could also be the case if you removed the “ex.”

Ero sposato con la mia attuale moglie quando la nostra casa di campagna fu svaligiata.
I was married to my current wife when our country house was burgled.
[I’m clearly still married.]

You just cited an example where, “ero sposato,” doesn’t mean that the speaker isn’t married anymore. That’s an admission I was right.

I’m sorry Tom but your line of reasoning is not correct. The time expression “per sette anni” always requires a “present perfect tense”. That is why “ero sposato” would be ungrammatical.

First of all, it’s not true that it always requires the present-perfect tense. You could also use the preterit: “Fui sposato con lei per sette anni.”

Secondly, it isn’t even true that stating the duration of an event necessarily excludes the imperfect tense. It is entirely possible to say, “Lavorava per otto ore al giorno” (“He worked eight hours a day”).

So your explanation for why it’s, “sono stato sposato,” is clearly incorrect. It’s for the reason I said it was: because “per sette anni” marks it as a completed event.

Sono stato sposato / Ero sposato con una donna francese quando abitavo a Roma.
I was married to a French woman when I lived in Rome.
(Honestly, I would always use “ero sposato”.)

(7) Prendiamo in esame questa affermazione: “the imperfect tense never means that something isn’t the case anymore. It may be obvious from context, or it may be explicitly stated, as I mentioned, but the imperfect tense doesn’t signal it. That’s the job of the preterit and the present perfect.”
Vediamo:

Prendiamo in esame questa affermazione: “the imperfect tense never means that something isn’t the case anymore. It may be obvious from context, or it may be explicitly stated, as I mentioned, but the imperfect tense doesn’t signal it. That’s the job of the preterit and the present perfect.”
Vediamo: